Does EPPP Signal The Death Of The Football League?

[Jamie.]

This has not had that much air time nor has it had much print space in all honesty, but the implications of the new youth regulation program 'EPPP' or 'Elite Player Performance Plan' could have wide ranging implications for the 72 Football League clubs up and down the country. Premier League clubs are in absolute favor of this regulation, simply because it is designed specifically to pull all of the country's top youngsters and prospects into Premier League academies in opposed to Football League academies. This is the biggest youth regulation overhaul in over a decade, and yet the awareness seems vastly impaired. This week has seen some ludicrous ideas, from no more relegation to individual TV deals.

The Premier League forced through these proposals with the charge being led by the Premier League director of youth Ged Roddy. The scheme has in depth inputs from academy directors across the Premier League, notably Manchester United/Aston Villa/Arsenal/Chelsea, along with the clubs themselves. The stand out mandate throughout, justification on the Premier League's part, is to get a program which allows more 'hands on development' of young players which everyone across the board wants. But in reality, behind the gloss and the PR, the regulations hurt more clubs than they help.

The new system, which could and probably will be implemented from next season, is a 4 tier category system from category one to category four. If an academy and it's performance/quality is deemed to be excellent they get category 1 status and funding. Category 1 academies will also be required to have 18 full time members of coaching staff employed at any one time as well as residential provision for youngsters. Category One clubs will receive £2.5 million pounds funding per year and their status will be reviewed every 2 years.

Implications of EPP -

• The 90 minute rule that academies currently follow, essentially the travel distance for their catchment area boundaries, has been scrapped. Meaning any academy can take on board any youngster from anywhere in the country.

• Tribunals for Under 17's have been scrapped, meaning no more multi million pound deals and payouts for 16 year olds. Instead there is a reward system with £3,000 for every year of development from 9-11 years old and between £12,500 and £40,000 for every year of development between the ages of 12 and 16. There is additional payments that can be made, however in a major move if the youngster who has been signed from another club then goes on to play 100 Premier League games the feeder club is only due £1.3 million.

• Category one clubs will get an advantage of signing youngsters from an earlier age than any other category.

• Compensation payments to clubs in the vast majority of cases will be increased, according to the Premier League, and easier to gain than under the current system.

• The argument by the Premier League is this system will only encourage Premier League clubs to take a gamble on Lower League youngsters, as a Premier League academy director said himself this week this system encourages a blanket approach.

• The maximum compensation, signing players on youth contracts from a club to another, is now being capped at £50,000 per player a far cry from the hundreds of thousands/millions clubs need to pay now. There is nothing to stop Premier League clubs signing 20 youngsters from Football League academies per age group, per season, all on the pure gamble that one of them turns out to be good enough.

• The Premier League believe EPPP will simply allow academies to free up their coaching staff and designate more efficiently elite groups. In a bizarre statement they also say they hope EPPP will cut the number of youngsters Premier League academies take on board.

On October 20th 2011, the Football League clubs took a vote (With the FA and Premier League already approving EPPP) and 46 out of the 72 Football League clubs voted in favor of these regulations. You're probably wondering why on earth they would vote for something which could end a lot of clubs ability to self rely on youth?

Currently the Premier League fund youth development in the Football League, sharing out £5.4 million pounds per year across the 72 clubs (Currently has 3 years left on a 4 year deal) it's this handout which has forced the hand of a lot of League One/Two clubs. If the Football League had voted against this regulation then the Premier League had said they would withdraw funding to the Football League hence the slender majority in favor of the regulation. If it makes any difference, whatsoever, fans of Peterborough/Middlesbrough/Reading/Leeds/Swindon/West Ham your clubs have confirmed they absolutely voted against this regulation (Public denouncements) I would presume a lot of Championship clubs did.

This new system allows Premier League clubs to be predatory, more so than they are now, robbing Football League clubs of the chance to have homegrown heroes even if it is for a 2 year spell (Chamberlain for example). Whilst we all embrace some of the new regulations and reform, why does the EPPP restrict fees and make it so easy for Premier League clubs to sign who they want for nominal fees?

Football League chief Greg Clarke said after the vote that ''Football League clubs should embrace their community and sign local talent'', if that's so Greg then why on earth scrap the 90 minute rule?

I should explain what the 90 minute rule has done for Lower League clubs, in the past - even right now - Premier League clubs can not sign players outside of a 90 minute catchment area (Unsigned youth) therefore protecting Football League clubs and their academies... Essentially for most of them, their survival. But now that is gone, there's nothing stopping Manchester United signing a youngster out of a Hampshire park.

The Premier League is adamant they want the Football League to survive and bring up the payments they will continue to make (For the next 3 years) but that's rather short term, after the current deal runs out there is no guarantee they will continue to fund youth development in the Football League. And why would they? With these regulations Premier League clubs will be able to sign whoever they want for nominal fees, they have no need for the Football League.

I can see the impact of this regulation being closer links between Football League clubs and Premier League clubs (More feeder clubs) because it's proven that youngsters who ply their trade in the Football League do gain valuable experience, I don't think that will go away. But from the Football League stand point I can see longer contracts for youngsters with a culture of 'clauses' coming into play. Most likely high release clauses.

I for one am worried about what these regulations will mean for a lot of Football League clubs in the next 10 years, so many of them are dependent on local youth and then selling on for a high fee. Without that business strategy a lot of clubs will struggle to pay the tax bill yet alone the wage bill.

Whilst this regulation may improve the Premier League academy's standard, is it worth sacrificing 72 clubs so that 20 get the chance to gamble - and it is a gamble - that they may each have a homegrown star in 7 years time?

 

[Billy]

I think it's disgusting. I read about it the other day, and it's becoming more and more apparent that Scudamore doesn't see English football as a sport, but a war between two brands.

I still don't understand how the vote got through. I'm thinking the nPower League 1 & 2 teams panicked at the threat of the Premier League revoking their academy money and caved, whereas the more financially capable Championship teams were the 20 or so to oppose the decision.

Just one 'potential star' produced via one of the League 1 or League 2 academies and they can fetch a couple of million £ from some of our clubs, which often helps keep them afloat for a number more years.

I'm really expecting a lot more clubs to begin struggling without the potential income from offloading young talent for a premium.

 

[Jamie.]

I think it's disgusting. I read about it the other day, and it's becoming more and more apparent that Scudamore doesn't see English football as a sport, but a war between two brands.

I still don't understand how the vote got through. I'm thinking the nPower League 1 & 2 teams panicked at the threat of the Premier League revoking their academy money and caved, whereas the more financially capable Championship teams were the 20 or so to oppose the decision.

Just one 'potential star' produced via one of the League 1 or League 2 academies and they can fetch a couple of million £ from some of our clubs, which often helps keep them afloat for a number more years.

I'm really expecting a lot more clubs to begin struggling without the potential income from offloading young talent for a premium.

Absolutely, the Dale Jennings money will keep Tranmere afloat for a while that's for sure. I do have a sneaking suspicion this may be part of the Premier League collective looking at ways to cut expenditure ahead of FFP. Paying £50,00 maximum for any youngsters up and down the country is a lot less than the 1-2 million pounds they pay now.

26 Football League teams said no to this, I'm guessing the majority are Championship clubs and probably Sheffield United/Swindon/Preston. I can't see this being good for the leagues at all, I can see it becoming such a top heavy system that the entire bottom 2 divisions will be propped up by loaned players.

I really don't think Football League clubs fans know about this or the implications yet, 5 years down the line they'll be furious because their clubs have essentially sold out their community for the sake of a couple of hundred thousand in PL handouts a year.

 

[ajt09]

what makes me dam sick about this whole thing...If they voted "no", the Premier League threatened to withdraw over £5m of funding that they give to lower league clubs each year for youth development. I'm well known via my threads/posts for being passionate about football, but this is just stinking to high heaven, and I'm very angry. It just proves, they don't give a **** about any club outside the PL. Scudamore just go and do one.

 

[alicwkd]

I think this is ******* ridiculous. Just one more way in which the EPL clubs are being helped and lower league clubs hindered. It's going to get to a point where the gap between the divisions is too big for any of the promoted sides to survive. God help English football with some of the baffling proposals that are being made lately.

 

[ajt09]

I think this is ******* ridiculous. Just one more way in which the EPL clubs are being helped and lower league clubs hindered. It's going to get to a point where the gap between the divisions is too big for any of the promoted sides to survive. God help English football with some of the baffling proposals that are being made lately.

Feels like English football is on it's knees and just waiting for the killing blow.

 

[Jake]

The 90 minute rule always has been bendable at best, broken at worst. I live in a town outside of Peterborough, i was at both Peterborough and Boston Utd (when they were in the football league) in my youth. One of my mates at Peterborough was taken by Villa when we were 13, he lived over 2 hours from Birmingham. When i was at Boston we had a lad who lived in Halifax, which is over 2 and half hours from Boston.

Posh and Boston were league 1 and 2 clubs, i can only imagine the things premier league or even big championship clubs would do to get around this rule. Scrapping it will make no noticable difference imo.

As for the rest of it. League clubs are going to lose most of their best youngsters and for less money no doubt. But in return i think there will a large number of players who weren't quite good enough being released by the big clubs. These lads (who have been training at top clubs for perhaps a few years) will be available for free to football league clubs. So there is a flipside that many league club representatives haven't recognised, inlcuding Posh's Barry Fry who is considering shutting down Posh's youth setup, which hasn't produced much since Luke Steele anyway, and long gone are the days of a Matthew Etherington coming through.

Many of the well run big clubs already have excellent loan policies in place, so lower league club shouldn't suddenly have threadbare squads. But ultimately money is the big sticking point here.

 

[ajt09]

The 90 minute rule always has been bendable at best, broken at worst. I live in a town outside of Peterborough, i was at both Peterborough and Boston Utd (when they were in the football league) in my youth. One of my mates at Peterborough was taken by Villa when we were 13, he lived over 2 hours from Birmingham. When i was at Boston we had a lad who lived in Halifax, which is over 2 and half hours from Boston.

Posh and Boston were league 1 and 2 clubs, i can only imagine the things premier league or even big championship clubs would do to get around this rule. Scrapping it will make no noticable difference imo.

As for the rest of it. League clubs are going to lose most of their best youngsters and for less money no doubt. But in return i think there will a large number of players who weren't quite good enough being released by the big clubs. These lads (who have been training at top clubs for perhaps a few years) will be available for free to football league clubs. So there is a flipside that many league club representatives haven't recognised, inlcuding Posh's Barry Fry who is considering shutting down Posh's youth setup, which hasn't produced much since Luke Steele anyway, and long gone are the days of a Matthew Etherington coming through.

Many of the well run big clubs already have excellent loan policies in place, so lower league club shouldn't suddenly have threadbare squads. But ultimately money is the big sticking point here.

Do you not think it could stunt the development of players though? Look at John Bostock. From Palace to Tottenham, now finds himself loaned back to lower league clubs like Brentford and Hull.

 

[Joel`]

Do you not think it could stunt the development of players though? Look at John Bostock. From Palace to Tottenham, now finds himself loaned back to lower league clubs like Brentford and Hull.

Hardly a bad thing for his development.

 

[Jake]

There are pros and cons with regard to stunting development.

The player will be at a club with better facilities, as well as better coaching and a better standard of first team player to learn from.

On the downside, first team action will be limited, as will games in general, as the reserve league system in England is fractured and chaotic.

Some of the blame for stunted development can be aimed at the player though. Did Bostock really expect to walk into Tottenhams first team? If he did then the problem is far deeper than EPPP. The advice and the people giving said advice to young players comes into question.

Although a slightly different point, as most players receiving offers are already in the first team of their football league club. There are many examples of young players who have had offers from bigger clubs and chose to stay to improve as a player.
Cairney at Hull could have gone to a wealth of premier league clubs over the Summer, he chose instead to remain and prove himself as a top Championship player. His story also reinforces a previous point, Hull picked up Cairney for free aged 16 after he was released by Leeds.

Lets say a 17 year old breaks through at Hartlepool in the next few weeks. Hartlepool are currently just outside the playoff places in league one. Said players performances help Hartlepool to win the playoff final and gain promotion to the Championship. I'll put all the money i have on that player going on to become a much bigger star if he stays with Hartlepool for the following two seasons and helps them to stay in the Championship rather than moving to a premier league team the day after the playoff final, thus spending his next 3 years as a professional either in the reserves, on the first team bench or on loan at said premier league teams feeder club (unlikely to be in the Championship)

Not only would this player become a much bigger talent, i think almost everyone involved in football would have much more respect for him.

If you are as talented as John Bostock is (was) and you choose to chase the cash rather than prove you've actually got some ability then i have have very little respect for you. This rant is starting to go off topic, the discussion is more about Palace losing money on future little ***** like Bostock, so I'll end here.

 

[ajt09]

There are pros and cons with regard to stunting development.

The player will be at a club with better facilities, as well as better coaching and a better standard of first team player to learn from.

On the downside, first team action will be limited, as will games in general, as the reserve league system in England is fractured and chaotic.

Some of the blame for stunted development can be aimed at the player though. Did Bostock really expect to walk into Tottenhams first team? If he did then the problem is far deeper than EPPP. The advice and the people giving said advice to young players comes into question.

Although a slightly different point, as most players receiving offers are already in the first team of their football league club. There are many examples of young players who have had offers from bigger clubs and chose to stay to improve as a player.
Cairney at Hull could have gone to a wealth of premier league clubs over the Summer, he chose instead to remain and prove himself as a top Championship player. His story also reinforces a previous point, Hull picked up Cairney for free aged 16 after he was released by Leeds.

Lets say a 17 year old breaks through at Hartlepool in the next few weeks. Hartlepool are currently just outside the playoff places in league one. Said players performances help Hartlepool to win the playoff final and gain promotion to the Championship. I'll put all the money i have on that player going on to become a much bigger star if he stays with Hartlepool for the following two seasons and helps them to stay in the Championship rather than moving to a premier league team the day after the playoff final, thus spending his next 3 years as a professional either in the reserves, on the first team bench or on loan at said premier league teams feeder club (unlikely to be in the Championship)

Not only would this player become a much bigger talent, i think almost everyone involved in football would have much more respect for him.

If you are as talented as John Bostock is (was) and you choose to chase the cash rather than prove you've actually got some ability then i have have very little respect for you. This rant is starting to go off topic, the discussion is more about Palace losing money on future little ***** like Bostock, so I'll end here.

Perfectly valid points. If he did expect immediate starts over seasoned pro's in the first team, well, that is indeed very foolish, or like you mentioned, he was poorly advised. Maybe he expected it after getting first team games at Palace, so perhaps got ahead of himself a bit.

I shall say nothing more on that matter simply because.......you pwned me lol

 

[Mike.]

Scudamore is a cancer. He doesnt care about the sport, just the brand. As long as the EPL brand is strong he will ride roughshod over everyone.

I just hope the PL clubs are responible when it comes to going to that talent. Wont hold my ******* breath though

 

[Joel`]

How is it even good for the premier league in the long term, if the football league worsens it just increases the gulf in class, so any promoted clubs just become whipping boys for the other 17 teams? Part of the appeal and brand of the premier league is the smaller teams and the concept of "anyone can beat anyone else on any day" Some of the most entertaining games from last year came from the newly promoted/lower ranked teams in the league, the premier league needs the lower leagues to function well better than they realise/care to notice. The league can't carry itself for too long on the draw of its elite games, there's simply not enough variety/amount of them to make it feasible. It's not exciting nor entertaining to watch newly promoted clubs get consistently whipped 8-0.

 

[Jamie.]

That's the other argument that people like Glen Hoddle are highlighting, this will lead to more U-21 releases by Premier League clubs. That could be seen as a positive I suppose or a negative that so many professional players get left without a club or contract like young Tom Cruise who was released by Arsenal and still remains a free agent.

I definitely agree that this will shine a light on young players who do move for the money, the only thing you can hope is that agents don't go wild with this and start using these new regulations to get players away.

Put it this way, if a 16 year old wonderkid at a League 1 club was wanted by say West Brom instead of the previous compensation laws (Pretty much uncapped) the set price for him can only be £50,000 and if we talk in terms of the current system and that players worth 2 million pounds you can only assume that that left over money will get spent upping the wages and on a pro contract or on agent fees...

The Premier League say the aim of reforming Premier League academies is to stop them 'clogging up' elite programs and coaching with 'unadequate' talent.

I should also mention one of the brain childs of this scheme is none other than Gareth Southgate.

I agree with some of the reforms but the pure elitism of this policy just makes me... sick that this is what 'the brand' has come to and suddenly slightly improving 'the brand' is more important than 72 football clubs survival and history.

What this means for teams like Southampton/Leeds/Middlesbrough I'm not sure but with their investment in academies and the effort into delivering successful youth systems all so they can 'feed the big teams' without getting much in return.